- 14 -
and cannot be affected by any settlement between the
parties before or after judgment.
Mo. Ann. Stat. sec. 484.130 (West 1987). This provision stands
in marked contrast to the provision of the Alabama Code relied on
in Cotnam. Although both provisions give an attorney a lien to
secure his or her compensation, the Missouri provision, unlike
the Alabama provision, does not give attorneys the same right and
power over suits, judgments, and decrees as their clients had or
may have.
While we agree with petitioner that Missouri law does
provide attorneys with a lien interest in their client’s cause of
action, we are unable to find, and petitioner fails to cite, any
authority under Missouri law that transfers to the attorneys an
ownership or proprietary interest in their client’s cause of
action. Rather, the cases that petitioner has cited only allow
attorneys a lien interest, as opposed to an equity or ownership
interest, in their client’s cause of action. In Missouri,
attorneys do not have the same substantive rights in proceeds
recovered on behalf of their clients as do attorneys in Alabama.
See Mills v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 221 S.W. 1, 4 (Mo. 1920)
(“the cause of action is the property of the client and not the
attorney”).
The Missouri provision granting a lien interest to secure an
attorney’s compensation is more akin to those attorney lien
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011